LI Network
Published on: 09 August 2023 at 11:45 IST
During the proceedings of the Bilkis Bano case, the Supreme Court has raised concerns about the admissibility of a previous writ petition filed by one of the convicts in 2022.
The court examined how this petition, which led to an order allowing the State of Gujarat to decide on the premature release of life-convicts, was admitted when the convict had already approached the Gujarat High Court with a similar writ petition that had been rejected.
The case pertains to a group of 11 convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and violent sexual assault during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. In 2022, they were granted remission by the Gujarat government and released on Independence Day.
A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a series of petitions against the Gujarat government’s decision to grant remission.
Justice Nagarathna questioned the legitimacy of the writ petition filed by one of the convicts, Radheshyam Shah, in which the Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order and allowed the state government to decide on remission.
She noted that Shah had already filed a similar petition in the Gujarat High Court, which had ruled that the appropriate government for remission would be the State of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court questioned how this subsequent petition was admitted and entertained.
When the convicts’ lawyer, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, tried to intervene, Justice Nagarathna requested that he address these questions during his turn and not at that moment.
The Supreme Court had set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order and allowed Shah’s petition, leading to the convicts’ premature release.
Bilkis Bano, the survivor, filed a review petition against this judgment, arguing that Article 32 remedy was not available against a judicial order. The review petition was subsequently dismissed by the court.
During the hearing, Advocate Shobha Gupta, representing Bilkis Bano, argued that the government had not considered the societal impact of releasing the convicts and had disregarded various relevant factors required by the law.
She stressed that the principles of penology and the gravity of the crimes committed should have been taken into account. However, Justice Bhuyan clarified that the court would focus on legal submissions rather than public outcry.
The hearing in the case was adjourned until the following day, with the bench indicating it would hear the respondent’s submissions on the preliminary objection raised regarding the standing of the petitioners who had filed public interest litigation (PIL) petitions.
Cae Background:
The Bilkis Bano case involves the gang-rape of Bilkis Bano during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. Bano’s family members were also brutally murdered. After years of legal proceedings, convictions were obtained in 2008, and the convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment. The case gained national attention, and in 2017, the Bombay High Court upheld the convictions and sentences.
The Supreme Court directed the Gujarat government to provide compensation and support to Bilkis Bano. In 2022, one of the convicts’ writ petitions led to the Supreme Court’s order that allowed the Gujarat government to consider remission for the convicts, resulting in their release.
This decision triggered widespread protests and led to various PIL petitions challenging the convicts’ premature release.